Comments on: Mexico’s Hugo Chavez wannabehttp://www.samizdata.net/2008/04/mexicos-hugo-ch/
A blog for people with a critically rational individualist perspectiveTue, 03 Mar 2015 22:35:32 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Faisalhttp://www.samizdata.net/2008/04/mexicos-hugo-ch/#comment-167548
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:36:55 +0000http://192.168.200.139/?p=11442#comment-167548Good Day. It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one. Help me! Need information about: Discount lamisil. I found only this – Lamisil fungoid tincture. That youhave a level quantity of generic lamisil in your system. In the past years, there has been a steady increase in the incidence of terbinafine lamisil, novartis azoles. Thanks :confused:. Faisal from Nauru.
]]>By: Gringohttp://www.samizdata.net/2008/04/mexicos-hugo-ch/#comment-167547
Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:12:12 +0000http://192.168.200.139/?p=11442#comment-167547During the 2006 Presidential election, there was an ad that put together Lopez Obrador’s rants alongside those of Hugo Chavez. Lopez Obrador was able to get the ad pulled.
]]>By: Lairdhttp://www.samizdata.net/2008/04/mexicos-hugo-ch/#comment-167546
Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:06:03 +0000http://192.168.200.139/?p=11442#comment-167546Paul, that was my entire point: that it didn’t make sense for Obrador to be engineering economic decline since it would be bad for him personally, which I thought was the argument you were making. Perhaps I misunderstood you, and evidently I didn’t make myself clear. Sorry.
]]>By: Paul Markshttp://www.samizdata.net/2008/04/mexicos-hugo-ch/#comment-167545
Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:21:16 +0000http://192.168.200.139/?p=11442#comment-167545Laird:

Economic decline would not “increase the hold on power” of Obrador, it would make it more likely that the left could gain power – via elections perhaps.

Politics 101.

Emilio Rivaud:

Your English is better than mine (and it is supposed to be my native language) – but I do not agree with your view of history on the nationalization question.

Nationalizing the the oil fields did not give Mexico a chance of economic development – it reduced its chances of economic development.

You will be aware of the old joke “not only did the Americans steal half of Mexico, they stole the half with the paved roads”. Nationalism did not serve Mexican economic development well.

However, your examination of the present Mexican political situation seems very good – but then you are Mexican and have a better knowledge of the situation.

I do not think O. will win – after all there is too much at stake for him to be allowed to undermine future oil development.

I am more concerned with other matters – such as the pledge of the Calderon government to provide “free” health care for everyone.

This pledge is not possible to achieve – at least not if the health care is to be of a good standard.

Do I think the chambers will allow foreign investment into Pemex? Well, there are already some forms of foreign investment into Pemex, but they are slightly illegal or plainly unconstitutional: all the Chambers need to do is iron the existing laws so this type of contract acquires legal status. And I think they will soon enough, probably before the end of the year, regardless of the debate. The debate, if anything, will help to introduce some left-wing proposed safeguards in order to keep Pemex from being completely bought by Exxon or Shell.
I dont´t quite understand why you say that foreign investment will happen when PRD seizes power. First, the PRD is allegedly against any form of foreign investment. This could be a lie, part of some elaborate strategy to undermine Calderon´s government, like someone pointed out, but it´s more likely a plain demagogic posture to get some voters on their side. Either way, the only form in which PRD could seize power is by winning the next presidential elections, that will occur in 2012, and I don´t think foreign investors (the ones who are really pushing this initiative) will wait that long; neither would this long wait be on the benefit of Pemex. The other option would be López Obrador doing some á la Chávez move to seize power, a “democratic” coup d´Etat, or something of the sort, that, I believe, isn´t feasible at the moment, if only because both the Army and the US are strong supporters of Calderon.

]]>By: mikehttp://www.samizdata.net/2008/04/mexicos-hugo-ch/#comment-167542
Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:02:37 +0000http://192.168.200.139/?p=11442#comment-167542One more semi-thought before I hobble off to bed…

Does the prevalence of populist socialism in Latin American countries today owe anything to the memory of the Jesuit missions of the 17th and 18th centuries?

Or to put it another way – are there people in Venzuela for example, who think about Hugo Chavez in the same way that their predecessors, say ten generations ago, would have thought about their high Jesuit priests?

]]>By: mikehttp://www.samizdata.net/2008/04/mexicos-hugo-ch/#comment-167541
Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:49:15 +0000http://192.168.200.139/?p=11442#comment-167541Your English is good Emilio, and thanks for the history.

Do you really think the Chambers will allow foreign investment into PeMex?

I suspect that they will – but not yet. My guess is that will only happen once the PRD have taken power.

Politics is primarily about seizing power – it is only secondarily about the economy, security etc – all such issues and ‘debates’ are merely the means by which politicians pursue power. So the ‘condition’, as you say, of PeMex and its’ possible future, does not have the slightest importance to any serious Mexican politician – except as a way to either maintain or to seize political power.

First, a bit of Mexican history: the oil industry was nationalized in 1938. Prior to that, it was foreign companies that kept the wealth that now contributes to about 35% of Mexico´s annual budget, that is, the money used to keep the country running. Nationalization gave Mexico the possibility to achieve a certain degree of economic development, and that is why a vaste proportion o Mexicans (from 40 to 80%, according to who´s making the poll) oppose any initiative that implies letting private hands into Pemex.
It is true, nevertheless, that the company has been looted and deprived of the resources it needs to achieve further development. The Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Industria Petrolero Mexicana -that is, the oil industry workers´union is an old friend of the PRI (Mexico´s former ruling party, that famously lasted 70 years in power “democratically), and a lot of money from Pemex has gone down that drain (during the 2000 elections, for instance, there was a mayor scandal involving the Union´s General Secretary in a 100 million dollar loan from the company to the union, which ended up, illegally, in the PRI´s presidential candidate campaign). The looting has also come from government officials, private contractors (who get a lot of money from not doing what they are supposed to) and, of course, the government´s 30 something percent tax on Pemex revenues. There are many names to this: corruption, incompetence.
The real condition of the company, on the other hand, is uncertain. According to some, the shallow water oil wells will be depleted within ten years, leaving no choice but to get on with the deep water exploration, in which private investment will be certainly needed. But according to some others, there is plenty of accessible oil reserves to exploit before he have to get into more risky ventures. According to some, the best way to save Pemex from financial ruin is to allow private investment, according to others, it would be best to strengthen it from within the State´s boundaries, by reducing taxes and fighting corruption. The point is, there is no consensus among the experts, the politicians and or the general public as to what need to be done with Pemex.
Which gets us to the present stand. On March 13th, the government sent a vast array of law initiatives regarding Pemex. It had been announced by PAN (president´s Calderón party) and PRI that everything was ready for the approval. PRD representatives and senators, following López Obrador´s command, seized control of both Chambers with one demand: that before any law initiative was discussed, an ample debate about Pemex took place. As a result, the bill hasn´t been approved, and the details for this ample debate are being discussed. This is no minor issue: the very future of the country depends on its oil, so making a careful desicion is in everyone´s best interest.
That representatives and senators are ready to follow any command from their leader without any regard to the institutions they belong to, or the people they are supposed to represent, is, simply put, a disgrace to their “high distinction” (as the press releases´s common place goes). This applies to both parts in the story: the PRD and its seizure of the tribunes, and the PRI-PAN with their willingless to approve such an important law without taking into account the opposition (and by this I mean not only PRD, but the experts and the public opinion). But this is not to surprise anyone: institutions, and specially the Chambers, don´t work here. That´s why individuals like López Obrador get a chance to do what they do (and, quite frankly, what he did is nothing compared to what Hitler or Pinochet did: the TV spot is way out of line). But in the meantime, the debate on Pemex will be underway soon, and hopefully, for the best.

Ps. If my English is unclear at any point, please let me know.

]]>By: Lairdhttp://www.samizdata.net/2008/04/mexicos-hugo-ch/#comment-167539
Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:02:06 +0000http://192.168.200.139/?p=11442#comment-167539So Paul, you’re saying that Obrador is deliberately destroying to Mexican economy to increase is hold on power? Does that really make sense? After all, when things get bad enought that there is rioting in the streets, totalitarians may seize control but usually the incumbent ruler ends up at the end of a noose. Is Obrador willing to be a martyr so the PRI can expand its control? Somehow I doubt it.

Remember Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”